The well educated and the virtuous

[Pindar]

So no ruling on what virtues they're supposed to have huh?

No. Particular virtues are not relevant to the idea of whether virtue itself is necessarily tied to being well educated.

[Don Corleone]

I think this thread has been more about where we lie on the epistimological scale (traditional, core meaning or modern, generally accepted meaning) and less on our views of morality/virtue among political leaders (or even among educated people in general).

You are referring to education in the classical sense. In many ways, an education back then was an event, not a process. Upon completion of one's time at the academy, one ascended to membership among the ruling class (as opposed to the plebians), correct?

I thought one of the hallmarks of our society was that there was no such litmus test. Theoretically, a ditch-digger could be president in our society. Education in our society is about knowledge, not status, at least not theoretically.

If what you really intended was the use of the term educated in the sense of improved or civilized, then might I suggest you put forth the same posit, but substitute the term 'enlightened' for educated.

[Pindar]

You are referring to education in the classical sense. In many ways, an education back then was an event, not a process. Upon completion of one's time at the academy, one ascended to membership among the ruling class (as opposed to the plebians), correct?

The question does not look at economics or social stratification per say, but the meaning of to be educated. The notion of education necessarily entailing and informed by the moral is the traditional model that served until quite recently. This is one reason university (to turn as one)* is the word opted for to describe higher education.

*This of coarse makes for an interesting notion when one sees the current fad of university diversity.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think it is a double edged sword. You must learn what it means to be virtuous. I believe that virtue is taught in different ways than advanced shcholarship. On the one hand, I believe that an educated person is apt to be MORE virtuous or LESS virtuous than the average due to the (supposed)ability to avoid conflicting concepts. Therefore, the educated man is more like a tempered instrument of Virtue, Vice or callous indifference.

[Tribesman]

The more this topic goes on the more I see that I voted correctly .
For this....

Posit: the well educated man must be a virtuous man.

to become agreeable it should change to....the virtuous man must be virtuous .

[Pindar]

The more this topic goes on the more I see that I voted correctly .
For this....Posit: the well educated man must be a virtuous man.
to become agreeable it should change to....the virtuous man must be virtuous .

The assertion A must be A is certainly the case. But the posit may not be a simple identity correspondence. It may be one is a subset of the other. In other words: to be well educated includes more than virtue, but virtue remains a necessary element.

[Tribesman]

It may be one is a subset of the other. In other words: to be well educated includes more than virtue, but virtue remains a necessary element.

Try it the other way round Pindar , it works better .
But it is still flawed .
While the sets-subsets or whatever you wat to call them have a relation it is not exclusively so .

[Xiahou]

I thought about this more than I ever intended to (which still wasn't a whole helluva lot), but I've come to the conclusion that "well" is the important qualifier here.

Can you be educated and not virtuous? Sure.
But if you're not virtuous, are you well educated? I think not.

[Don Corleone]

Bad thread, shmad thread. It's not for MM to declare a thread bad and end it. If it's a bad thread, nobody posts in it and it dies a whimpering, cravenly though mercifully quick death. As the starter of more than a few of that variety, I should know.

Thinking about it more, I think Xiahou is correct. Pindar's posit wasn't 'the educated man must be virtuous' or 'the highly educated man must be virtuous'. By using the qualifier 'well', it would appear that Pindar is making a point about the inherent value of education and what it's root purpose is. I don't think this is a question that even comes up anymore. You ask the average university student 'what is the point of your education' and depending on their degree program you'll get:

Undergrad: To have a piece of paper so I can get a good job and make money.

Graduate: I want to own the place I work at one day.

Doctorate: I like university life. I want to be the chief egghead.

Notice that virtue appeared in none of the three responses. I suspect it is this, the modern attitude towards education: It's purpose and it's value, at which Pindar is driving.

In light of that, I'd like to modify my answer. "The well educated man must be virtuous" therefore must be a true statement. Well being an adverb describing the adjective educated, meaning done properly. If an educated is not virtuous, than his education could not have been a successful one.

[Adrian II]

Notice that virtue appeared in none of the three responses. I suspect it is this, the modern attitude towards education: It's purpose and it's value, at which Pindar is driving.

Agreed. Modern education has lost some essential components of the original or classical notion of all-round schooling: physical, intellectual and moral (not in order of importance). These days there is too much emphasis on emotional education, which is a wishy-washy method to evade the real issues that children are confronted with as well as the proper ways in which adults should react to them.

Let me give an example from the life of my own kids. A kid's cat has died. In the classroom this event is treated like a major disaster. All other kids are expected to sympathise. Crying (even by other kids) is expected. Endless talk about it is encouraged. All emotions expressed are accepted and treated as equal. Morale of the lesson: loss of an animal is a total disaster, lack of emotional (self)control is a good thing, shared grief tops private grief and talking crap is OK as long as it expresses someone's emotional state.

I hate this.

[Vladimir]

No. Particular virtues are not relevant to the idea of whether virtue itself is necessarily tied to being well educated.

What I was angling at is demonstrated in the patricide scene in Gladiator. Two men, both educated, with wildly differing virtues. Your posit relies on a lot of relativistic language. What virtues must a man have to be considered well educated? Is there any doubt that both men in that scene are well educated?

[Pindar]

What I was angling at is demonstrated in the patricide scene in Gladiator. Two men, both educated, with wildly differing virtues. Your posit relies on a lot of relativistic language. What virtues must a man have to be considered well educated? Is there any doubt that both men in that scene are well educated?

Ahh, a Ridley Scott man. If we follow the form put forward, our film Marcus Aurelius expressly states his son Commodus is not a moral man. Thus, Commodus would be an example of a failed education. It is because of this his father would deny him the purple.

The posit does not rely on a lot of relativistic language. The language is simple and the notion clear: the well educated man must be a virtuous man ( if A then B). The content of B is secondary to the claimed relation between A and B.